Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Long Range Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Long‑range planning program: city spends $721,000 a year; comp plan work subsidized by $625,000 state grant over two years
Summary
City planning staff outlined the long‑range planning program June 3: 2.23 full‑time equivalents and an annual program cost of about $721,000, with state grant support of roughly $625,000 over two years noted as partial funding for the comp plan update.
Liberty Lake’s long‑range planning program — the team that manages the comprehensive plan, code updates and master plans — costs the city about $721,000 per year in combined personnel and non‑personnel expenses, staff told the council June 3.
Planner Lisa (community development) summarized the program’s scope and budget during a program‑profile presentation. “It takes full time equivalents, 2.23 full time equivalent positions to deliver this. Personnel costs are 327,000 and change, and non personnel costs are almost 400,000 for a total cost of 721,000 in the year,” she told council members. The program covers the comp plan update currently underway, transportation and capital‑facilities planning, code administration, and related master‑planning efforts.
State grant and cost recovery: Lisa said the city has secured about $625,000 from the state over two years to support the comprehensive‑plan update; she said that amount “is not nearly what it costs to deliver it, but it certainly helps.” She also described the city’s cost‑recovery approach: some plan amendment and code‑amendment work is privately initiated and recovers costs through fees, while other program components operate with partial cost recovery.
Measures and alignment: The presentation showed how long‑range planning aligns with the city’s strategic priorities — public safety and well‑being, quality of life and planned growth — and the program’s performance measures (number of engagement opportunities and participant counts). Staff said they will return with a summary of the program profiles presented to date so council and the public can track return‑on‑investment measures over time.
Next steps and public engagement: Staff previewed upcoming outreach work and performance reporting; council members asked about continuing the program‑profile series and whether the cadence should change. Lisa said staff will return with a consolidated summary of the profiles and proposed reporting cadence at a future meeting.
Ending: Council received the program profile and directed staff to continue developing the comp plan engagement and the program‑level measures that will be used to report outcomes to council and the public.
